We just got done with a 3 game west coast trip that saw the Ducks, Kings and Sharks, did we look anywhere remotely like that in any of the 3, as soon as we were hemmed in they gave up, there was no fight after the 1st, they've got two weeks to think about this one and then play them like a team with emotion
- HankdaTank

I thought we actually had the better of the play after the first but the islanders turned it up another level and we couldn't respond. Props to them. It's not like the rangers just decided "screw it, we give up" during intermission.

I think there are four very good teams in the Metro. I think any of those teams can either lose in the first round, or make a run. Some very good teams are going to be one in done in the playoffs, because very good teams are going to play each other.
- Pete V

Like the central division in recent years. St. Louis ran into the Blackhawks in consecutive first rounds. St. Louis was one of the best teams in the league, during those playoff seasons, yet bowed out both times to Chicago.

The top half of this division is very good; probably better than any other top half in any other division this season.

I thought we actually had the better of the play after the first but the islanders turned it up another level and we couldn't respond. Props to them. It's not like the rangers just decided "screw it, we give up" during intermission.
- rangerdanger94

No excuses, Islanders executed their game plan better than the Rangers did. It didn't help that Stepan got hurt early on and couldn't finish the game but that still doesn't excuse the rest of the team not matching the urgency and energy of their opponent last night.

No excuses, Islanders executed their game plan better than the Rangers did. It didn't help that Stepan got hurt early on and couldn't finish the game but that still doesn't excuse the rest of the team not matching the urgency and energy of their opponent last night.
- MidnightMarauder

Personally, I think it is more about not being capable last night than not having a sense of urgency. I think they left their legs in California. They looked like a tired team that couldn't win any puck battles. Sometimes your body can't do what your brain is telling it to do, and that is not a matter of not having courage or urgency, it's just a matter of not being capable. Fatigue can make you look like your not putting in an effort.

Maybe if they played a lesser team last night, the Rangers could have battled through and got a W, but they just got throttled by a hungry team who was just looked fresher and better.

I think going to the west coast and having to play Anaheim, the Kings and the Sharks in a four day span just took a lot of out of them and it showed.

I can see the Rangers finishing third place in the division; playing either Pittsburgh or Islanders in the first round.

I think the Islanders can win the division this season and I can't be the only one.
- MidnightMarauder

No reason at all why we can't win the division, none, last nights game didn't clinch a damn thing

Personally, I think it is more about not being capable last night than not having a sense of urgency. I think they left their legs in California. They looked like a tired team that couldn't win any puck battles. Sometimes your body can't do what your brain is telling it to do, and that is not a matter of not having courage or urgency, it's just a matter of not being capable. Fatigue can make you look like your not putting in an effort.

Maybe if they played a lesser team last night, the Rangers could have battled through and got a W, but they just got throttled by a hungry team who was just looked fresher and better.

I think going to the west coast and having to play Anaheim, the Kings and the Sharks in a four day span just took a lot of out of them and it showed.
- Pete V

Yep but a lot of teams fight through rough scheduling. I just think the Islanders are a better team at this point and it showed. Rangers look inept in almost every phase of the game last night. They should have scored at least one goal, in the first period, but the Islanders took over the game in the second and there was nothing the Rangers could do about it.

These games happen, they just have to make sure they don't turn this one game into a bit of a slide. The next three games could easily be lost. The Bruins are playing their best hockey of the season, next to Columbus in a back to back situation and then onto Pittsburgh.

Rangers have to somehow nip this in the bud and potentially without their second best forward for one or all of these games.

Personally, I think it is more about not being capable last night than not having a sense of urgency. I think they left their legs in California. They looked like a tired team that couldn't win any puck battles. Sometimes your body can't do what your brain is telling it to do, and that is not a matter of not having courage or urgency, it's just a matter of not being capable. Fatigue can make you look like your not putting in an effort.

Maybe if they played a lesser team last night, the Rangers could have battled through and got a W, but they just got throttled by a hungry team who was just looked fresher and better.

I think going to the west coast and having to play Anaheim, the Kings and the Sharks in a four day span just took a lot of out of them and it showed.
- Pete V

Agreed. I also felt they started to lose their legs in San Jose as well but benefited from getting a 2 goal lead. Who knows maybe instead of posts they score and take a 2 goal lead then they battle through. Doesn't matter who they played last night they would have played the same. Islanders are a good team and exposed the fatigue factor. Like Jan said it just stings more because it's the Isles.

I understand that. If you asked me right now though what would make this team better, more physical, or better on faceoffs, I'm going to have to go with better on faceoffs. Who knows, that's just my opinion.
- mdw7413

Someone still has to be traded because Hayes would be moved to the wing. Hags is the odd man out IMO.

Someone still has to be traded because Hayes would be moved to the wing. Hags is the odd man out IMO.
- nyrangers9479

Or we can just keep our depth. I don't understand why we have to get rid of someone to bring them in. As we see now with the stepan injury, these things happen all the time and it's nice having competent players available to step in.

No reason at all why we can't win the division, none, last nights game didn't clinch a damn thing
- HankdaTank

I am not waving the white flag but it's also ok to admit when one team is better than the other. Last night, and so far this season, the New York Islanders are better than the NY Rangers.

This doesn't mean it will be so when the playoffs start but right now it's hard to argue otherwise.

Hrm...if Glass were Kenopka we would have a guy with a career 60% face-off win percentage and an extra $500k in cap space.

Hrm...if Glass were Kenopka we would have a guy with a career 60% face-off win percentage and an extra $500k in cap space.
- Maskdman3

I don't think its feasible to bring in a faceoff guy without messing with the chemistry too much. Winning face offs is great, but once a player does it, he has to stay on the ice, right? So, how much is some faceoff specialist really going to help the Rangers, because he wouldn't be taking too much time away from Stepan, Brassard and Hayes. Now, you get that guy, and the upside is he can win key faceoffs during the game, but since the player isn't going to play huge minutes, it won't do much for your faceoff percentage.

IMO, they just have to get better internally.

I am not waving the white flag but it's also ok to admit when one team is better than the other. Last night, and so far this season, the New York Islanders are better than the NY Rangers.

This doesn't mean it will be so when the playoffs start but right now it's hard to argue otherwise.
- MidnightMarauder

I think you're right on all counts. They have looked better but come playoffs that may not be the case.

Halak vs Lundqvist in a 7 game series alone may be the equalizer. I realize of course I am saying this the day after he shutout the Rangers and Hank left the game early but like Tom Petty says "even the losers get lucky sometimes."

Or we can just keep our depth. I don't understand why we have to get rid of someone to bring them in. As we see now with the stepan injury, these things happen all the time and it's nice having competent players available to step in.
- rangerdanger94

Meaning if we wanted to bring in a very good faceoff specialist someone would need to go. Aren't we at the limit for contracts?

Someone still has to be traded because Hayes would be moved to the wing. Hags is the odd man out IMO.
- nyrangers9479

I think that would screw with the chemistry although he's not producing enough to save himself right now

Meaning if we wanted to bring in a very good faceoff specialist someone would need to go. Aren't we at the limit for contracts?
- mdw7413

Not with Lombardi gone I believe.

I don't think its feasible to bring in a faceoff guy without messing with the chemistry too much. Winning face offs is great, but once a player does it, he has to stay on the ice, right? So, how much is some faceoff specialist really going to help the Rangers, because he wouldn't be taking too much time away from Stepan, Brassard and Hayes. Now, you get that guy, and the upside is he can win key faceoffs during the game, but since the player isn't going to play huge minutes, it won't do much for your faceoff percentage.

IMO, they just have to get better internally.
- Pete V

I sure hope if Stepan is out a bit they bring up Oscar Lindberg and have a look. Tanner Glass and his 6 minutes of trying to create a forecheck don't do a whole lot.

I don't think its feasible to bring in a faceoff guy without messing with the chemistry too much. Winning face offs is great, but once a player does it, he has to stay on the ice, right? So, how much is some faceoff specialist really going to help the Rangers, because he wouldn't be taking too much time away from Stepan, Brassard and Hayes. Now, you get that guy, and the upside is he can win key faceoffs during the game, but since the player isn't going to play huge minutes, it won't do much for your faceoff percentage.

IMO, they just have to get better internally.
- Pete V

Agreed. I didn't actually mean to suggest acquiring Kenopka. It was more of another head scratching moment as it was discussed the year the Wild signed him and we picked up some other bone headed contract and then again this year where we have 1.5M in cap space tied up in a player that is physically unable to contribute to the team in any way.

Cue the gif of the guy beating the dead horse.

I don't think its feasible to bring in a faceoff guy without messing with the chemistry too much. Winning face offs is great, but once a player does it, he has to stay on the ice, right? So, how much is some faceoff specialist really going to help the Rangers, because he wouldn't be taking too much time away from Stepan, Brassard and Hayes. Now, you get that guy, and the upside is he can win key faceoffs during the game, but since the player isn't going to play huge minutes, it won't do much for your faceoff percentage.

IMO, they just have to get better internally.
- Pete V

Problem with this Pete though, is they have stunk at faceoffs for years. I dont think it will get any better. When the playoffs come around and its tight 1 goal games, this could be a huge difference. I get what you are saying about changing the chemistry, I just have a feeling this could really bite this team in the playoffs.

I sure hope if Stepan is out a bit they bring up Oscar Lindberg and have a look. Tanner Glass and his 6 minutes of trying to create a forecheck don't do a whole lot.
- jimbro83

Believe it or not, I think yesterday was a game we could've use glass. The islanders made us their female dog in the physical aspect of the game all the way to the first period when brassard got rocked in the face during a scrum. Maybe glass could've provided some energy and intensity with a 2nd period fight.

Or we can just keep our depth. I don't understand why we have to get rid of someone to bring them in. As we see now with the stepan injury, these things happen all the time and it's nice having competent players available to step in.
- rangerdanger94

Agreed, they need to get rid of the Glass contract, waive him and open up a spot for a face off guy, they've been rolling 4 lines for a month and AV seems to have gotten to that spot in the season where he doesn't screw with the lineup but it all started in the dots last night, can't ignore the one glaring weakness

Believe it or not, I think yesterday was a game we could've use glass. The islanders made us their female dog in the physical aspect of the game all the way to the first period when brassard got rocked in the face during a scrum. Maybe glass could've provided some energy and intensity with a 2nd period fight.
- rangerdanger94

yeah, I did think of it, and he'll probably suit up vs Boston because they have a few doosh bags there.

I was actually missing Dorsett last night to be honest

Problem with this Pete though, is they have stunk at faceoffs for years. I dont think it will get any better. When the playoffs come around and its tight 1 goal games, this could be a huge difference. I get what you are saying about changing the chemistry, I just have a feeling this could really bite this team in the playoffs.
- mdw7413

I get that, and I agree. But, in order for it to make a real difference, you almost have to trade one of your Top 3 centers for a guy that is better in the dot. Otherwise, if you are just bringing in a specialist, I don't think your overall percentage goes up much. At least, however, you would have a guy capable of winning key draws during the game.

But, how many draws is that guy going to take during the normal flow of the game. Not many, right?

Meaning if we wanted to bring in a very good faceoff specialist someone would need to go. Aren't we at the limit for contracts?
- mdw7413

Doesn't Duke going back to juniors open one up?

yeah, I did think of it, and he'll probably suit up vs Boston because they have a few doosh bags there.

I was actually missing Dorsett last night to be honest
- jimbro83

I don't know why we traded him, obviously AV wanted Glass and Dorsett was the odd man out but what a mistake it was, he was a lunch pail guy